Locally and nationally, political will to take on climate change is building. And it’s not a moment too soon.

Along with its perils, a critical moment in history brings unique opportunities. The growing recognition of global warming is such a moment.

Releasing the National Climate Assessment on Black Friday may have been an attempt by the White House to minimize its impact, but climate change denial is no longer in vogue. Awareness is dawning nationally and locally.

The Thrive Indianapolis plan, with its 16 goals and 60 actions to neutralize carbon, is an excellent start at local remediation. IPL’s phased reduction of coal usage, which currently accounts for 44 percent of its energy production, has great potential impact.

Converting the remainder of the IndyGo fleet to electric and providing increased EV parking spaces, adding more green space per capita, providing composting services and curbside recycling –- the list goes on, promising improved quality of life and reduction of greenhouse gases.

On the national scene, five members of the House have introduced a carbon fee and dividend bill, the first bipartisan carbon tax initiative in almost a decade. The formation of this coalition insures that climate change will have a place on the next session’s agenda.
Locally and nationally, political will to take on climate change is building. And it’s not a moment too soon.

Myrna Gray

Indianapolis

A well crafted hate-crimes law could promote deterrence, rehabilitation

What would constitute “meaningful” bias-crime legislation?

First, let’s dismiss proposals focused on repairing Indiana’s brand, that is, on enabling economic developers to market the state more advantageously. Proponents make no pretense of caring about the actual incidence of bias crime and its effect on victims.

What’s left — at least so far — is a proposed bill that appears to reaffirm in a separate law the latitude judges already have per case law to consider bias motivation as an aggravating factor in sentencing. Predictably (at least from the Democratic side), one or more bills will be proposed to establish bias crime as a crime in itself, with a penalty that isn’t discretionary and that would likely lengthen a perpetrator’s sentence beyond what he or she would receive under current case law (hence, the term “enhanced penalty” law).

I will not try to analyze here the partisan motivations behind each of these legislative approaches nor to lay out the all-too-likely fate of the current proposed bill and proposals-in-waiting.

Suffice it to say that we don’t know that either approach would result in anything “meaningful.” No one is arguing that their proposal would rehabilitate perpetrators of bias crime. No one has presented convincing evidence that their proposal would deter bias crime, whether by setting a tone or by striking fear into the heart of potential perpetrators. Setting partisan motives aside, these proposals look like well-intended wishful thinking at best or disingenuous lip service at worst.

Admittedly, one could argue that providing victims the catharsis of feeling revenged by a perpetrator’s longer sentence is meaningful. Indiana case law already provides that possibility. I would argue that it could be more constructively cathartic to have one’s community and state respond to one’s victimization directly and expeditiously through vocal solidarity and assistance, a targeted commitment to public education, and the sponsorship and fostering of restorative justice.

The bias-crime law we want is one that’s truly effective and that’s worth the price — one that won’t generate negative, unintended consequences that outweigh its benefits.

Hiding in plain sight is the virtuous option of fixing and strengthening Indiana’s 18-year-old bias-crime reporting law, a measure that most law enforcement agencies throughout the state have broken routinely on a sporadic or yearly basis. (And why so, the General Assembly seems content to remain ignorant). While providing a factual basis for future public policy, a fixed and strengthened reporting law would sow the seeds — albeit modest — for much-needed cultural transformation in Indiana: greater public awareness of bias crime; better education for law enforcement officers; and a spur to communities to self-regulate and improve themselves. If crafted the right way, such a law could deliver on deterrence, rehabilitation, and catharsis.

Now, that would be meaningful.

John Clower

Bloomington

Foreign aid investment will bolster national security measures

The devastation of the Syrian refugee crisis has been felt by many, and it has generated many political, economic, and humanitarian questions that need to be answered. Entire communities are displaced, terrorist groups have solid footing, and there seems to be no end in sight.

However, the best offense is a good defense. What if we could have stopped this from happening all together. A terrorist’s best friend and most useful resource are communities in need. People in extreme poverty with no hope on the horizon. What happens when you give those people hope? Extremist ideology finds no footing.
If the appeal of investing money to impoverished communities has no appeal from a humanitarian point of view, what about a national security point of view? Investing in development is not a purely charitable act and has been shown to be more cost effective than trying to play “offense” later down the line.

Currently less than 1 percent of the federal budget is directed at foreign aid, and 18 percent is spent on defense and international security. The U.S. has one of the largest economies in the world, but in 2014 our contribution was only 0.19 percent of our gross national income, ranked 18th behind countries such as Sweden, Germany, and Canada.
I ask our representatives support any legislation that benefits the foreign affairs budget in order to actively work to prevent situations such as the Syrian refugee crisis in the future. Let’s work smarter, not harder.

Maddie Engledow

Carmel

Most pollution is generated by developing nations

Why is it that newspapers like IndyStar and other prominent news outlets show pictures of power plants on very cold days as illustrations of environmental pollution? Is it because the streams of cooling tower and boiler scrubber stack exhausts produce such voluminous clouds of condensing water vapor? These streams are practically clean of air pollutants. And to top it off the power generators in the United States have switched so many boilers from coal to natural gas that overall national CO2 emissions have declined significantly. Climate change is real. Yet, far more pollution is being generated by other burgeoning nations over which we have no control. Unfortunately we all have to live and breathe in the same atmosphere.

Michael Cise

Indianapolis

America must avoid meddling in Middle East unrest

As a survivor of the hostile takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, Iran in 1979, I take time to monitor Middle Eastern political policies. By backing out of the Iran Nuclear accord, an agreement that the UN Security Council, along with 90 independent nations and 29 of America’s top nuclear scientists supported, the Trump administration appears to want Iran to open hostilities in order to give America an excuse to attack. I believe this is why UN Ambassador Niki Halley is resigning along with rumors that Defense Secretary General Mathis and Chief of Staff General Kelly are considering calling it quits also. I fear that John Bolton, Trump's national security adviser, wants the U.S. to start a war with Iran. Open hostilities between the U.S. and Iran will not only benefit Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the American Petroleum Institute; all while diverting negative news regarding Trump.

Two former heads of Mossad (the Israeli CIA) along with General Colin Powell, secretary of state under President George W. Bush and General Petraeus, Bush’s former head of the CIA, were in agreement with the accord. Intelligence circles know Israel planned an attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2012, but were thwarted by the Obama administration. It appears Israel (and Saudi Arabia) still want the U.S. to aggravate Iran and enter into another Israeli inspired Middle East war, just so Israel can remain the only nuclear armed country in the region and Islamic hardliner Saudi Arabia can weaken their arch enemy, Islamic moderate Iran. I feel that blindly following the political desires of Israel and Saudi Arabia is not in the best long term interests of the United States.

Dan Barrett

Jasper

Congress must focus on America's deteriorating armed forces

The naivete of American politicians and mainstream media never ceases to amaze when these elements opine that nations in the realm of international relations should act in accordance with, or be governed by, the concept of human rights.

In a geopolitical paradigm, nations act on the basis of strategic national security, and vital economic self interests. To complement Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the global political construct is indeed a very selfish and dangerous place.

The death of Jamal Khashoggi is most certainly a sad loss to his family, and to the world of journalism in general. But one homicide cannot be allowed to dictate American foreign policy. Saudi Arabia is a strategic partner to the United States with respect to the Middle East energy markets, as well as serving as a counterbalancing agent to the aggressively expansionist policies and bellicose actions coming from the government of Iran.

The homicide was committed on Turkish soil in the Saudi Consulate by Saudi agents on a Saudi national. This is an issue for both Saudi and Turkish governments to deal with. Their authorities are responsible for these law enforcement issues. Thereafter a proper court of competent jurisdiction within either or both their respective nations will be charged with the adjudication of the case according to their domestic substantive and procedural legal mechanisms.

And to these Capitol Hill grand standers, stay out of this Saudi affair. Instead, focus your collective concerns on the high probability the United States stands to lose a conventional war with either China or Russia should events come to such a drastically dangerous point.

This exceedingly dangerous fact of life now stands as a happenstance of and consequence from the deteriorating state of the armed forces of the United States during those eight years of inept, misguided, and blundering policies put forth by the Obama administration.